Sovereign Network Homes (202121137)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202121137

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

1 March 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the provision of estate services paid for by the resident through his service charge to the landlord.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder under the shared ownership scheme of the landlord, who is a housing association. The lease commenced on 31 July 2014.
The property is a 2 bedroom flat on the first floor. The landlord has no record of any vulnerabilities for the resident.
The landlord owns the block and is responsible for services related directly to it, including communal window cleaning. The freeholder for the estate appointed a management company to manage its estate function. The landlord pays a contribution towards the maintenance of the wider estate to the management company and recovers its costs from its residents. The management company discharged their duties to a managing agent.

Summary of events

On 21 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to report concerns about overgrown trees and bushes adjacent to his parking space which were causing damage to his vehicle. He was also concerned that the communal windows were not being cleaned despite residents being charged for the service. The landlord replied on the same day, 21 October, to confirm it had raised a stage 1 complaint.
The landlord’s internal email of 26 October 2020 confirmed that the communal windows were cleaned every 3 months, most recently in April 2020.
The landlord’s internal email dated 25 November 2020 stated that the trees and bushes in question were outside the landlord’s boundary and were the responsibility of the freeholder of the estate.
On 4 January 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to clarify whether the trees it had identified on an attached plan were the ones causing the issue. If so, then they belonged to the freeholder and it would pass on its suggestions for works. It confirmed that the complaint was closed.
On 26 February 2021 the resident called the landlord to chase works to the overgrown tree.
On 10 March 2021 the landlord emailed the management company to pass on reports that multiple areas of paving were moving and uneven throughout the site. It asked it to confirm once the issues had been addressed.
On 1 April 2021 the landlord emailed the management company to chase a response to its email. It also asked it to inspect the tree overhanging the car park.
On 22 April 2021 the resident emailed his formal complaint to the landlord, as follows:
1. He had tried to raise a complaint about work covered by service charges not being done or unfairly charged. The concerns he raised were met with an inadequate response and closed or ignored.
2. The external communal window cleaning had never been carried out. This was evident by the build up of moss and dirt which was more than a year old. He requested a full refund of the charge for at least the past 3 years. He requested additional compensation for the landlord ignoring his complaints.
3. There was a chip in the window of the front door which had been reported to the landlord. He understood it could not be fixed at that time due to COVID-19 restrictions but it had been there for 2 years. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had not noticed it.
4. He felt the general condition of the estate was poor, including sinkholes in car parks or roads and overgrown trees and bushes. He was concerned that residents were not getting value for money from the service charge they paid to the management company.
On 22 April 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had reopened the complaint it closed in January. This was because the complaint was about the same issues. It confirmed that the repair to the front door was a new complaint which had been passed onto the property services team.
An internal email dated 22 April 2021 confirmed that the landlord tried to contact the management company about the grounds maintenance and estate issues on 2 occasions. It noted that it had not received a response.
On 21 May 2021 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint, as follows:
1. It had sent numerous emails and tried to call the management company regarding the condition of the estate but it had not responded. It said it had escalated the matter and would update the resident in due course. It apologised for the delay in providing a response on this point.
2. Its investigation into the issue was taking longer than it “would like.” The cleaning contractor had provided an audit form to show the windows were cleaned on the 15 April 2021. However, it acknowledged that photos provided by the resident suggested this was not the case. It would provide a further update in due course and apologised that it was not able to answer that part of the complaint.
3. It offered a “goodwill gesture” of £75 because the resident had to chase for a response to some of his enquiries and for a failure not related to this complaint.
On 21 May 2021 the resident replied to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response. He felt it was unacceptable that the management company was not responding to its contact. He disputed the window cleaner’s assertion that the communal windows had been cleaned. He did not feel that £75 was sufficient compensation for time spent pursuing the issues over a number of years. He asked the landlord to visit the estate and see the issues for itself.
On 24 May 2021 an internal email confirmed that the landlord intended to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. It said it was still investigating the cleaning and estate issues.
On 1 June 2021 the landlord sent an email to the management company seeking an update on the uneven paving stones and overgrown bushes around the car park area.
An internal email dated 2 June 2021 confirmed that there had been a change in management company. The landlord confirmed it was struggling to contact the new management company by phone but had sent a chaser to the new email address.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 18 June 2021, as follows:
1. It confirmed that as part of its complaint investigation it had spoken to the resident and visited the site.
2. It had spoken to a new grounds maintenance contractor for the estate, appointed by the management company. It acknowledged that the maintenance had been poor. It said it was working to bring the whole site back up to an acceptable standard, including the overgrown bushes next to the resident’s car parking space.
3. It saw for itself the issues that raised about broken kerb stones and the movement in the block paving. These would be passed to the management company so that they could raise any required works.
4. It had also passed on its concerns about the tree and the planted area next to the resident’s parking space to the management company.
5. It intended to raise the issues of poor services supplied by the management company and to ask for redress for the poor service. It would update the resident in due course.
6. It did not expect that management company would issue any refunds for poor service. However, it expected the management company to take matters seriously and address the issues that the resident had raised and those witnessed during its visit.
7. During the estate visit it identified several inspection chambers which stood proud of the ground around the building, causing a tripping hazard. It also observed the movement in the block paving in its car park and the chipped window in the communal front door. It had raised works orders to address the issues.
8. During its visit it was evident that the windows had not been cleaned for a “long time” for which it apologised. It confirmed that it would refund 2 years of the window cleaning charge paid by the resident.
9. It confirmed this was not the level of service it aimed to provide for which it apologised. It acknowledged that both the landlord and management company had made failures.
10. When considering compensation it took into consideration losses incurred, detriment caused and the seriousness of the failure. It confirmed it would not normally offer compensation in this type of case.
11. It said it was a charitable organisation with a social ethos, any surplus generated was reinvested into providing social housing. Money paid in compensation reduced the amount it could reinvest for the benefit of its communities.
12. However, it had offered £75 at stage 1 of the process so it would honour that amount in addition to refunding the window cleaning charges.
On 21 June 2021 an internal email confirmed that the communal windows had not been cleaned for over a year. It therefore requested that the last 2 years of cleaning costs were refunded to the block to “make good on its service failure.”

Events post internal complaints process

On 15 July 2021 the landlord sent an internal email to confirm that the resident had reported that a branch had fallen off an overgrown tree and smashed his windscreen. He asked for a call back and expressed his ongoing dissatisfaction with the general condition of the estate. He was also dissatisfied with its complaint handling.
On 25 August 2021 the resident emailed the landlord, copying in local councillors, as follows:
1. Gardening was scheduled to take place every 2 weeks however, bushes had become overgrown, obstructing access to the main door. Others had recently been “hacked away.”
2. As of 25 September (assumed to be a typographical error and should read 25 August) the windows had not been cleaned. The landlord had failed to contact residents to confirm it would issue a 2 year refund and reasons why.
3. The dead tree and overgrown bushes by the car park were still an issue. He had tried to contact the freeholder who directed him back to the landlord.
4. He had walked the estate and identified a number of issues, including raised paving and a sinkhole in the car park. He asked the landlord to inspect the estate.
5. He asked the landlord to clarify whether it was pursuing the management company for costs charged for services not provided. He was dissatisfied that the landlord was not accepting responsibility for the actions of the management company.
On 2 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident as follows:
1. In terms of charges made by the previous management company for services it did not deliver, it had challenged this. The management company was appointed by the freeholder to manage the estate on its behalf. The landlord was a customer of the management company in the same way the resident was a customer of the landlord. It was not able to demand a refund of monies paid to the management company.
2. The service charge cost for grounds maintenance covered all aspects of the service provided. Not all works were carried out on each visit, they were spread out over the course of the year to deliver a cost effective service.
3. The window cleaners were to attend every 4 months and were next due to visit in October. The landlord would monitor this. The refund for 2 years of window cleaning charges was refunded on 22 July 2021. It has asked its service charge team to write to the block to confirm the refund and apologised it had not done so.
4. It had notified the management company about issues with the trees and also asked it to cut back the bushes. It believed there was a tree preservation order on the tree in question so the management company would need to seek permission from the council to carry out works.
5. It provided details of the new management company and advised that it was unlikely to take direct approaches from residents and therefore he may need to direct his enquiries through the landlord. It had passed on his list of issues to the management company and it would update him on any feedback.
6. It would carry out a further block inspection in October.
7. It had no rights or responsibilities to the wider estate other than to pay its share of the costs of maintaining the estate which it recovered from leaseholders. Its inspections were limited to areas under its management and historically it had not looked at the rest of its estate. In response to his complaint it was looking at the rest of the estate when it visited and would report any issues back to the management company. It had asked the management company to meet with it on site and intended to ask the resident and local councillors to attend.
On 2 September 2021 the resident emailed his response to the landlord requesting that the refund for the communal window cleaning go beyond 2 years. He reiterated his disappointment that the landlord had not pursued the management company, that it had not carried out its own estate inspections and that the issue with the overgrown tree was ongoing.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 October 2021 to pass on an update from the management company including that its agent had tidied the bushes that were encroaching onto the car park. It also confirmed it had obtained quotes to carry out tree works. Following a recent site meeting it was satisfied that its agent had completed the works it was required to do on the wider estate and had passed on its charges accordingly. It provided a list of dates when grounds maintenance had been completed during 2021. The landlord also apologised if the resident had been told that its grounds maintenance contractor attended every 2 weeks in the summer because this was not the case for his block.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same day, 1 October 2021, to express his view that it appeared to be the management company “had nothing to answer for,” despite the long list of issues identified at the site inspection.
On 14 December 2021 the resident contacted this Service to raise his dissatisfaction around estate management services which had not been carried out but had been charged for, including grounds maintenance and window cleaning. He was also frustrated that the landlord was not making appropriate challenges to contractors and to the management company.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process on 18 June 2021. During his ongoing communication with the landlord the resident raised new issues including queries about specific repairs such as a gutter and downpipe repair, a request for an investigation into the contractors used on the estate and incorrect service charges.
In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of this Service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required. The resident may contact this Service for advice if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to any formal complaints made after the date this complaint was accepted for investigation on 18 January 2023.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s website says that for leasehold flats it is responsible for making sure that service charges are reasonable and explain how it had worked them out. It is also responsible for keeping the structure and shared areas (inside and outside) of flats clean, tidy, well maintained and in good repair.
The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time says that it aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If this was not possible it may need a further 10 days. It aimed to respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If this was not possible it may need a further 30 days.
The landlord’s guide on compensation says it is a charitable organisation and should only offer compensation if the resident has suffered financial loss due to service failure.

Service charges

The resident first raised concerns about the communal window cleaning in his stage 1 complaint of 21 October 2020. On 26 October 2020 the landlord’s internal investigation concluded that the windows had been cleaned at the appropriate 3 monthly intervals. The landlord did not communicate this information to the resident at this time which was inappropriate.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to address this element of the resident’s complaint in its first stage 1 complaint response of 4 January 2021. The resident therefore raised the issue again in his second stage 1 complaint of 22 April 2021. He said the windows had never been cleaned and that he was seeking a refund going back at least 3 years.
The landlord’s investigation was limited in its scope, comparing the contractor’s audit sheets to the photographs supplied by the resident. It is acknowledged that the landlord recognised and apologised for this disparity in its stage 1 complaint response of 21 May 2021.
However, the response was issued almost a month after the complaint was raised giving the landlord time to visit the estate to assess the situation for itself. Had it done so it would have been able to provide a timely resolution to the substantive issue in its complaint response. This would have prevented the resident being caused inconvenience, time and trouble in having to raise the issue again on 21 May 2021 at stage 2 of the complaints process.
By the time of the stage 2 complaint response, dated 18 June 2021, the landlord had satisfied itself that the windows had not been cleaned. It confirmed it would refund the charge for the last 2 years. It failed to address why it would not refund the charge for the minimum of 3 years requested by the resident. This was inappropriate because it was not transparent about the outcome of its investigation in respect of the charge and why it had decided 2 years was appropriate. This further eroded the level of trust between the resident and landlord.
In his complaint of 21 October 2020 the resident also raised concerns about the lack of grounds maintenance carried out. Having discussed the question of responsibility in an internal email dated 25 November, it is unclear why the landlord took until 4 January 2021 to clarify the situation with the resident. It is understandable that the landlord may need to confirm which land was being referred to but a delay of over 2 months was unreasonable.
The landlord failed to communicate with the resident effectively, causing him inconvenience, time and trouble in chasing the landlord for an update in relation to an overgrown tree on 26 February 2021. Despite emailing the management company on 10 March about other matters, the landlord did not escalate the issue with the tree until its email of 1 April. It is unclear why the landlord did not escalate this issue with the management company earlier and the delay was therefore unreasonable. Furthermore, it did not provide an update to the resident who once again was caused time, trouble and inconvenience in raising the issue in his stage 1 complaint of 22 April.
Also in his stage 1 complaint of 22 April 2021 the resident raised concerns about the general condition of the estate, including issues with the car park and roads. The landlords’ internal records of the same date show that it had acted appropriately in trying to escalate the issues to the management company. However, it noted had not received a response.
It confirmed the same to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response of 21 May. It said it had escalated the issue and would provide an update in due course. However, there is no evidence as to how is escalated the complaint and to whom which was inappropriate.
The evidence shows that the landlord kept trying to contact the management company. Its internal email of 2 June 2021 said the management company had changed and it was still experiencing difficulties. By the time of its stage 2 complaint response of 18 June 2021 its only update was that it was still trying to escalate the issues. In the 2 months that had passed since the resident first raised his complaint it had been unable to make any meaningful progress regarding the substantive issue which was unreasonable.
The landlord’s complaint response did acknowledge this failure to a limited degree. It acknowledged that there had been failures and said it would pursue the management company’s poor performance and provide a further update. It said it did not expect the management company to refund its service charge. However, it failed to consider its responsibility to ensure the management company fulfilled its obligations to its residents, and to putting things right where they had gone wrong. This would have been appropriate given its commitment to “making sure that service charges are reasonable.”
Despite its assurances that it would follow up with the management company and provide the resident with updates it failed to do so. The landlord’s inaction caused the resident further distress, frustration and inconvenience when he once again contacted the landlord, and this time other stakeholders, on 25 August 2021 trying to seek a resolution.
In its email to the resident on 2 September 2021 the landlord acknowledged that its estate inspections had previously been limited to land under its ownership. In his second stage 1 complaint of 22 April 2021 the resident raised his dissatisfaction that the landlord had not noticed the chip in the glass in the front door which he said had been there for 2 years so issues with COVID-19 restrictions did not account for its failing to notice. Furthermore, it is clear from the evidence that during its inspections it had not noted the lack of communal window cleaning. The landlord failed to provide a thorough response on this point. It therefore did not provide an explanation for what had gone wrong and what it would do differently to prevent a reoccurrence which was inappropriate.
Furthermore, it said “it had no rights or responsibilities to the wider estate other than to pay its share of the costs of maintaining the estate which it recovered from leaseholders.” Its position was inappropriate because residents should be able to hold the professionals responsible for the quality, safety and management of their homes to account. In turn, landlord should also be able to hold third party freeholders and managing companies to account in relation to discharging their responsibilities.
As it rightly pointed out in the same email, the resident’s queries regarding the management company would need to be directed through the landlord. This is because the resident had no contractual relationship with the management company but the landlord did. In the absence of a response from the management company, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have taken legal advice on its position and/or considered contacting the freeholder to explore if they could intervene. That it did not do so is evidence that the landlord did not do all it could to resolve the issue for the benefit of the resident which was a failure.
The failures identified in this report amount to maladministration, as follows:
1. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident.
2. It did not provide an explanation as to why its estate inspections had not picked up issues within the block.
3. It failed to carry out a thorough and timely investigation into the communal window cleaning. It failed to provide an explanation as to why it only provided a refund for 2 years, lacking transparency in its decision making.
4. Its response to the resident’s complaint about grounds maintenance was unreasonably delayed.
5. It did not consider taking further action in light of the lack of response from the management company. Given its obligations to the resident this was inappropriate.
In its stage 1 complaint response of 22 April 2021 the landlord offered the resident a “goodwill gesture” of £75. This was because the resident had to chase for a response to some of his enquiries and for a failure not related to this complaint. It did not say how much was apportioned to which failure therefore it is reasonable to conclude it was split equally. This meant £37.50 was awarded for inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to the service charge queries. This was in addition to the 2 year refund for the window cleaning.
Considering the number of failures and the distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused, the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £350 in addition to the £37.50 it has offered and the 2 year refund for the window cleaning. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but where there was no permanent impact.

Complaint handling

The resident raised his first stage 1 complaint on 21 October 2020. The landlord issued its response on 4 January 2021, 51 working days later and 41 working days out of time. The landlord failed to acknowledge the delay and therefore did not take steps to put things right for the resident which would have been reasonable.
Section 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) states that the landlord must address all points raised in the complaint. The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint about the window cleaning which was inappropriate. This was because the resident was caused inconvenience, time and trouble by having to raise the matter again in his second stage 1 complaint of 22 April 2021.
Having raised a second stage 1 complaint on 22 April 2021 the landlord issued its complaint response on 21 May. This was 20 working days later which was 10 working days outside of the landlord’s target response time causing frustration to the resident.
Furthermore, its response was not compliant with section 5.8 of the Code which states that a stage 1 complaint response must include details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident remains dissatisfied. The resident was therefore uncertain as to when and how he could escalate his complaint which delayed his ability to move through the complaints process.
Having made the errors, the landlord failed to acknowledge and apologise for the mistakes which was inappropriate. Given that it did not do so, it did not try to put things right for the resident which would have been reasonable.
The complaints policy in place at the time of the complaint was not compliant with the Code because it said it may take an additional 30 days to provide a stage 2 response. This investigation notes that this has been appropriately amended in the current complaints policy available on the landlord’s website.
Section 6 of the Code sets out the principles of effective dispute resolution. Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. This should include providing a financial remedy where appropriate. These principles apply to all our members, regardless of whether they are a charity.
Therefore, the landlord’s position that it will not pay compensation for distress and inconvenience caused by failure to provide a service is inappropriate. An order has been made for the landlord to review its approach to compensation against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The landlord failed to issue the first stage 1 complaint response within target and failed to address the issues relating to window cleaning. The second stage 1 complaint was also delayed, causing frustration to the resident. It also failed to provide information on escalating his complaint to stage 2. The failures were not acknowledged by the landlord and therefore it did not attempt to put things right. The failures amount to maladministration and the landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £200. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident but where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the provision of estate services paid for by the resident through his service charge to the landlord.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident. It failed to carry out a thorough and timely investigation into the communal window cleaning. Its decision making in relation to the refund lacked transparency. Its response to the resident’s complaint about grounds maintenance was unreasonably delayed. It did not consider taking further action in light of the lack of response from the management company.
The landlord failed to issue the first stage 1 complaint response within target and failed to address the issues relating to the window cleaning. The second stage 1 complaint was also delayed, causing frustration to the resident. It also failed to provide information on escalating his complaint to stage 2. The failures were not acknowledged by the landlord and therefore it did not attempt to put things right.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £550 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £350 for the failure in the resident’s complaint about the provision of estate services paid for by the resident through his service charge to the landlord.
  2. £200 for the frustration caused by the complaint handling failures at stage 1 of the process.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings in this case. It should include an explanation of its decision to refund the window cleaning for a 2 year period. If it is unable to provide a reasonable explanation it should consider whether it needs to review its offer and advise the resident accordingly. A copy of the letter should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review the case against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on landlord’s engage with private freeholders and managing agents. It should identify what went wrong and what it would do differently to ensure there is not a reoccurrence. The date and outcome of the review should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.
2. The landlord should review its approach to compensation against the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The date and outcome of the review should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.